Bradley Manning Nominated For Nobel Peace Prize As People Begin Realizing How Damaging His Case Is To A Free Press

from the wake-up-people dept

With Bradley Manning pleading guilty to some of the lesser charges against him, Harvard law professor Yochai Benkler -- who is a possible expert witness in the trial -- has an excellent and detailed post about why the entire case against him should be seen as a threat to the nature of whistleblowing and a free press. He notes that the US prides itself on its support of the First Amendment, even in uncomfortable situations, but this case could flip that around in a very damaging way.
A country's constitutional culture is made up of the stories we tell each other about the kind of nation we are. When we tell ourselves how strong our commitment to free speech is, we grit our teeth and tell of Nazis marching through Skokie. And when we think of how much we value our watchdog press, we tell the story of Daniel Ellsberg. Decades later, we sometimes forget that Ellsberg was prosecuted, smeared, and harassed. Instead, we express pride in a man's willingness to brave the odds, a newspaper’s willingness to take the risk of publishing, and a Supreme Court’s ability to tell an overbearing White House that no, you cannot shut up your opponents.
Yet, in the case of Manning, the government is going much, much, much further. It is trying to make leaking information to the press the equivalent of espionage and aiding the enemy -- a capital offense. If you want to create chilling effects on free speech and a free press, this is how you do it. If you believe in the stories above, about the fundamental respect for the First Amendment, then the nature of the prosecution should worry you a great deal.

As for those who claim that leaking to Wikileaks is not like the Pentagon Papers or leaking something to the press, Benkler's detailed analysis shows why that's bunk. Since Wikileaks released some of the material that Manning sent them, the organization has been painted as being this evil anti-American organization, and there's also been a big spotlight on Julian Assange, who is certainly not presented as a particularly likeable character. But, as Benkler points out, before Wikileaks got that material, it was regularly seen as an upstart media property, and a great place for whistleblowers to go to expose fraud and corruption. In other words, the idea that Manning chose to go to Wikileaks to harm the US seems quite unlikely. His story of exposing wrongdoing by the US and forcing a debate on how to have America live up to its principles has more credibility when you realize just how Wikileaks was portrayed prior to Manning's material being submitted:
The reputation that WikiLeaks has been given by most media outlets over the past two and a half years, though, obscures much of this—it just feels less like “the press” than the New York Times. This is actually the point on which I am expected to testify at the trial, based on research I did over the months following the first WikiLeaks disclosure in April 2010. When you read the hundreds of news stories and other materials published about WikiLeaks before early 2010, what you see is a young, exciting new media organization. The darker stories about Julian Assange and the dangers that the site poses developed only in the latter half of 2010, as the steady release of leaks about the U.S. triggered ever-more hyperbolic denouncements from the Administration (such as Joe Biden's calling Assange a “high-tech terrorist”), and as relations between Assange and his traditional media partners soured.

In early 2010, when Manning did his leaking, none of that had happened yet. WikiLeaks was still a new media phenom, an outfit originally known for releasing things like a Somali rebel leader’s decision to assassinate government officials in Somalia, or a major story exposing corruption in the government of Daniel Arap Moi in Kenya. Over the years WikiLeaks also exposed documents that shined a light on U.S. government practices, such as operating procedures in Camp Delta in Guantanamo or a draft of a secretly negotiated, highly controversial trade treaty called the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. But that was not the primary focus. To name but a few examples, it published documents that sought to expose a Swiss Bank’s use of Cayman accounts to help rich clients avoid paying taxes, oil related corruption in Peru, banking abuses in Iceland, pharmaceutical company influence peddling at the World Health Organization, and extra-judicial killings in Kenya. For its work, WikiLeaks won Amnesty International's New Media award in 2009 and the Freedom of Expression Award from the British magazine, Index of Censorship, in 2008.
It's sometimes difficult to remember that, given everything that happened in the past two and a half years.

Benkler goes on to point out that the "precedents" that the US tries to rely on to argue that whistleblowing to the press is a form of aiding the enemy are ancient, obsolete and laughable. Many of the arguments go back to some Civil War-era precedents, and even then, when you look at the details you realize they were discussing something extremely different than what happened with Manning (i.e., the cases involved using the press to send coded messages about confidential info, not releasing the info to the public).

In the end, Benkler makes a powerful point:
If Bradley Manning is convicted of aiding the enemy, the introduction of a capital offense into the mix would dramatically elevate the threat to whistleblowers. The consequences for the ability of the press to perform its critical watchdog function in the national security arena will be dire. And then there is the principle of the thing. However technically defensible on the language of the statute, and however well-intentioned the individual prosecutors in this case may be, we have to look at ourselves in the mirror of this case and ask: Are we the America of Japanese Internment and Joseph McCarthy, or are we the America of Ida Tarbell and the Pentagon Papers? What kind of country makes communicating with the press for publication to the American public a death-eligible offense?

What a coup for Al Qaeda, to have maimed our constitutional spirit to the point where we might become that nation.
Given all of that, you can see why some have nominated Manning for the Nobel Peace Prize. While it is highly unlikely that Manning will be given serious consideration for the prize, the more you look at the case, the more you realize how dangerous the US government's own argument is here, and how much of an attack it is on fundamental principles we supposedly believe in and fight for here in the US.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 5th, 2013 @ 10:07am

    from the wake-up-sheeple dept.

    FTFY

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Mar 5th, 2013 @ 10:12am

    Anyone who doesn't swallow what the mainstream media produces will remember most of those facts and for those the US have lost any and all credibility in whatever is related to freedom of speech. The issue is your average_joe has quite the bad Dory memory.. Or simply are alienated.

    This guy may end getting the Capital Punishment. But unlike what used to happen in the past, information flows freely and a lot faster now. The US image already suffered a great blow since this started. A Capital Punishment will be really, really harmful to the US. And will strengthen dictatorships all over. In the end it's a loss for everybody.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    Zakida Paul (profile), Mar 5th, 2013 @ 10:19am

    He is far more deserving than Barack "I love drones" Obama. My God that was a serious affront to previous winners of the prize.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 5th, 2013 @ 10:29am

    Embarrassing the U.S. with truth is aiding the enemy because ... uhm .. it gives merit to the true 'propaganda' used to criticize it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Rekrul, Mar 5th, 2013 @ 10:29am

    Unfortunately, the US Government of today views the Constitution as an outdated obstacle to its aspirations of power.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 5th, 2013 @ 10:32am

    Re:

    The people in US politics have forgotten the collective face of their fathers and should go West into the oceans.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    dennis deems (profile), Mar 5th, 2013 @ 10:33am

    Re:

    Henry Kissinger comes to mind...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    Zakida Paul (profile), Mar 5th, 2013 @ 10:36am

    Re: Re:

    Even John Hume and David Trimble

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Mar 5th, 2013 @ 10:37am

    Re:

    Literally stole the words out of my mouth (YOU THIEF! GIVE THEM BACK...or $150,000)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Mar 5th, 2013 @ 10:38am

    Re: Re:

    Who else understood where the above came from?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    Zakida Paul (profile), Mar 5th, 2013 @ 10:40am

    Re: Re:

    Feck off, copyright troll :-P

    If only more people had that courage ;-)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 5th, 2013 @ 10:46am

    If You Haven't Seen It

    Here is a good piece from The Real News on Manning:

    http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=767&Item id=74&jumival=9779

    I hope a copy of Mannings statement gets out. I also found it humorous that Manning would not answered questions during the hearing that would divulge classified information. Seems he is a strong person with a clear understanding of how to handle classified information.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Mar 5th, 2013 @ 10:48am

    Re: Re: Re:

    I just gave him +insightful.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 5th, 2013 @ 10:49am

    the biggest problem is that, like most governments, the USA are very quick and very strong at condemning everyone else for attacking, dismantling and ignoring human rights, freedoms and privacy but are in actual fact one of the world's biggest offenders! and that attitude spreads via various government agencies to other countries, through threats and sanctions. it just seems to me that the USA has completely lost it's way, it's values and what is important to both it as a country and it's residents. the views of some of those in positions of power are more concentrated on what can be done to inhibit the people, rather than what can be done to help them and help maintain peace and prosperity the nation strove to attain for so long

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 5th, 2013 @ 10:52am

    Too bad there's not a Nobel Prize for treason. He'd be a lock. I love this quote from the linked article:

    Most recently Manning’s leaking of classified documents led to the Obama Administration agreeing to withdraw all US troops from the occupation in Iraq, and Jónsdóttir felt this was reason to nominate Manning for the Peace Prize.

    Except that troop withdrawal from Iraq began in June, 2009. Manning was shopping his wares to the NYT and WP in January, 2010. Wikileaks didn't get it until at least February, 2010.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_of_U.S._troops_from_Iraq

    Sorry, to spoil more half-baked FUD with inconvenient facts.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    icon
    Sneeje (profile), Mar 5th, 2013 @ 11:03am

    Re:

    Well, but you need to follow a consistent line of logic yourself. All you did was point out a reason why the nobel nominator has a faulty premise for nominating. You've done nothing to prove or support an assertion of treason vs whistle-blowing, which inconveniently for you is the basis of this post.

    But don't let that spoil your thinking.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Mar 5th, 2013 @ 11:07am

    Re: Re:

    "Henry Kissinger comes to mind..."

    Please tell me you don't actually think Henry Kissinger deserved a Nobel Peace prize....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 5th, 2013 @ 11:10am

    There are no balls brassier than on the soldier who, for good or otherwise, takes a stand and tells his leaders to go stuff themselves.

    If the Nobel weren't a farce of well-connected people patting themselves on the back, I'd back his nomination. However I think he deserves recognition with substance... like a lifetime supply of beer.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 5th, 2013 @ 11:14am

    Re: Re:

    That's nicer than pointing at his crotch and saying 'your premise is dangling'. Zzzzip.. haha made you look.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Another AC, Mar 5th, 2013 @ 11:23am

    Re:

    Other notable Nobel Peace Prize winners accused or treason:

    Nelson Mandella (1993)
    Kim Dae-jung (2000)
    Liu Xiaobo (2010)

    and yes, Alfred Nobel himself.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Andrew D. Todd, Mar 5th, 2013 @ 11:41am

    How About Carl von Ossietzky (Nobel Peace Price 1935)?

    Ossietzky (1889-1938) got his prize for publishing information about Germany's covert re-armament, in violation of treaty commitments, which eventually led to the Second World War. In short, a whistle-blower. He was in a Nazi concentration camp at the time he got the award.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_von_Ossietzky

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 5th, 2013 @ 12:04pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    FWIW, it's a reference to Gilead, and as such Childe Roland to the Dark Tower Came. Gilead is almost like a scathing attack on American exceptionalism. When people failed to uphold their honour in the Manhood ritual, they were "sent West" to die.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    Gregg, Mar 5th, 2013 @ 12:07pm

    close but no banana

    The one thing that keeps getting looked over, is that Manning was on active duty when he did this. Being a Soldier is different than being a civilian. While I am a strong supporter of free speech, you can not condone members of the military releasing intentionally information of this kind. He is in a military court not a civilian court. He most likely will never see the light of day again, and if it was 35 years or more ago, he would have seen a firing squad.

    Now! what I would like to know is A) Wtf was a private doing having access to this confidential information and B) who was his commanding officer? as that person should not just be raked over the coals but charged as well!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    icon
    Liz (profile), Mar 5th, 2013 @ 12:08pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    I'm surprised someone as snappy as you missed the point. Zakida Paul thinks Obama didn't deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. Even though it was awarded to him after a disastrous 8 years of Bush Jr. White House, the first black man to be elected U.S. President, and a potential for sweeping change for American politics with regards to the War on Terror™.

    Now when dennis deems mentioned Kissinger, it was to illustrate that there were worse people who received the prize than Obama.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Mar 5th, 2013 @ 12:13pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Ah, clarified....and thank God....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    icon
    MonkeyFracasJr (profile), Mar 5th, 2013 @ 12:34pm

    leaking information to the press equivalent to espionage and aiding the enemy

    "... make leaking information to the press the equivalent of espionage and aiding the enemy."Well in essence it is.However I think the real problem is who is considered "the enemy". The enemy becomes whomever you wish to keep from knowing the information in question. This could be any or all of your: superiors, subordinates, rivals, adversaries, or friends. This is the dilemma that happens when there is no clear and accountable rules for what constitutes information should be kept from whom.

    My personal opinion is that there is no reason to keep most secrets. It is one thing to keep people and resources safe, (don't compromise access etc.) But is is another thing completely to keep the population in the dark about policies and practices.The government *should* fear the people and I believe if they kept far fewer secrets they would have far less to fear.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    Adam, Mar 5th, 2013 @ 12:40pm

    Oh, yeah, except it's not.

    1. Manning was on active duty with the military at the time.
    2. Manning was charged under the UCMJ (Universal Code of Military Justice) for releasing classified information, the U.S. then being in a state of (conflict)...etc., etc.

    No 'whistleblower' rights are being trampled on here - just the military doing what it needs to do to protect classified information. Manning lost those civilian protections once he agreed to be bound by the UCMJ. And even privates are taught about classified information (and what to do if you come across information you're not cleared for).

    This man admits he intentionally procured classified information and transmitted it to people not cleared for that information, risking the lives of every serviceman in the theater at the time. (The extreme amount of information he passed means he did no 'vetting' of that information before sending it along.) He deserves his punishment.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    icon
    Crashoverride (profile), Mar 5th, 2013 @ 12:43pm

    What often gets forgotten from many of the story's is how Wikileaks partnered with mainstream news organizations and even culled and parsed the data to limit the top secret or other such data.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 5th, 2013 @ 1:22pm

    Re: Oh, yeah, except it's not.

    What you're saying is true for the most part. The military does hope to discourage servicemembers from following suit by prosecuting Manning.

    Manning was an active servicemember with clearance when he distributed the information. This makes him subject to penalties for mishandling classified information and for being discilplined under the USCMJ.

    What you haven't said is that he also swore an oath to defend the Constitution of the US. You may have also failed to mention that some take their morals, their oaths, or their beliefs in the Almighty much more to heart than others. Or that some people in military service do in fact run into some pretty awful realities... and many face deep moral conflicts just from the exposure.

    You are correct though. And what you say lends creedence to my own dangling premise from earlier... that doing what Manning did takes testicular fortitude of the greatest scale.






    What you said does back up my previously stated belief that it takes the largest scale of testicular fortitude to

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    wayne, Mar 5th, 2013 @ 1:25pm

    Why it isnt a case of whistle blowing

    If he had only released information exposing war crimes that were being covered up, that would be whistle blowing. Instead he released as much information as he could and he could not have had any idea what the extent of that information was. I know most of you are probably in favor of completely open access to all information, but i don't think you're being realistic about this one.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Mar 5th, 2013 @ 1:49pm

    Re: Why it isnt a case of whistle blowing

    Well gee sorry that Wikileaks hasn't had time to get to everything yet. They could have help from the 'media' if the media weren't so wrapped up in trying to be good little citizens and ignore what people can see confirmed for the first time.

    Did you miss the part where things that had no need to be secret are being declared secret so we can cover up the Government violating the basic tenets of our society?

    I don't think your being realistic about what the Government knows and is trying to keep secret because it would devastate the image held by the most ardent supporters of 'Merika.

    To prevent terror they terrorize others.
    To prevent terror they weasel around the law.
    To prevent terror they piss on the Constitution and the citizens.
    To prevent terror they are doing the things done by the most 'horrible' nations... but pretending they are not.

    They slap the word secret on it to hide how horrible we really are, allowing the citizens to stay in this illusion of they hate us for our freedom... not because we took their husbands for wearing a common brand of watch and beat the crap out of them until they admitted to some scheme. Not because we are a land of tolerance who has leaders who are more intolerant than the Mullahs they denounce.
    Not because we are the shining example of Democracy, but because we make sure our corporate sponsors get first bid on rebuilding.
    Not because we call out leaders who turn off or censor the internet, while they try and pass bills giving that power to media cartels.

    Maybe its time we stop telling everyone else to live up to the standard we aren't even meeting anymore.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    icon
    Bergman (profile), Mar 5th, 2013 @ 2:06pm

    The American press ARE The People. The United States is made of We The People. Making war on the United States is one of the definitions of the crime of treason.

    If you consider the press and the people to be your enemy, then you are on the path to treason. All it takes is a violent act to go with the viewpoint and there is a firing squad in your future.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    icon
    JMT (profile), Mar 5th, 2013 @ 2:08pm

    Re: Oh, yeah, except it's not.

    "No 'whistleblower' rights are being trampled on here - just the military doing what it needs to do to protect classified information."

    The fact that this involves the military doesn't reduce the importance of whistle-blowing one iota. Do you really want a military that believes it can act in any way it wants without the chance of bad behaviour being made public? Do you genuinely believe that's a good result?

    "This man admits he intentionally procured classified information and transmitted it to people not cleared for that information, risking the lives of every serviceman in the theater at the time."

    Except even the military brass have admitted they can't point to any documented harm or genuine serious risk caused by the released docs. Just embarrassment. Oops.

    "He deserves his punishment."

    I don't think anyone, including Manning, expects him to avoid any punishment. The point is that the punishment he's received so far, and the potential punishment he faces if found guilty of all charges, are out of proportion with the crime and will create chilling effects that will allow the US military to carry on performing actions is doesn't want made public for fear of embarrassment or public backlash.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    Zoomie, Mar 5th, 2013 @ 2:45pm

    Re: Oh, yeah, except it's not.

    One small correction. It's the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

    Manning's charged violations have to do with the actions he is alleged to have performed, not the motivation with which he may have performed them. Whether he _thought_ something should be classified and not divulged isn't his business. The command structure declared it to be classified... it's classified. Transferring it to an unauthorized location is a violation of orders under military law, whether or not it's classified. Using unauthorized software on military computers is another. Getting around mandated security mechanisms is another. The folks over at Wikipedia have a complete itemized list of the charges against him here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_charges_against_Bradley_Manning

    When recruit Manning raised his little pink hand and swore "...that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice," it had consequences - real-life consequences. Whether or not the court determines that he knowingly aided the enemy, the rest of the charges, if proven, are pretty serious on their own.

    As to Manning being a whistle-blower in the legal sense, the military has a whistle-blower provision, but a pretty narrow one requiring that the military member report to Congress or to the Inspector General. Nothing about the press, public, or Wikileaks. The rules in the military are different than for the public. Pesky things, those oaths of service.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    icon
    Chosen Reject (profile), Mar 5th, 2013 @ 2:52pm

    Re: close but no banana

    Being a Soldier is different than being a civilian.
    Correct, civilians aren't expected to defend the country. What Manning did was expose things that the US government shouldn't be doing in an attempt to defend it from worsening. Where is your hatred of the child rape parties that the US government was paying for?
    While I am a strong supporter of free speech, you can not condone members of the military releasing intentionally information of this kind.
    No you aren't. You pay lip-service to free speech. Real freedom of speech doesn't care whether you dress in fatigues or civvies.
    He most likely will never see the light of day again, and if it was 35 years or more ago, he would have seen a firing squad.
    Perhaps, and isn't that tragic. That's the whole point of this post. It's shameful that the US would do that. I hope it doesn't. I'll be happy if Manning goes free. I'll be shocked if the US does the right thing and drops the suit entirely.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 5th, 2013 @ 2:54pm

    Re: Re: Oh, yeah, except it's not.

    The oath is most importantly to the constitution. It is telling that you left that out of your post when doing your selective quoting.

    "Pesky things, those oaths of service."

    Especially when those who swore an oath to the constitution choose not to uphold it in order to keep their job, rank, social status, etc.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Mar 5th, 2013 @ 3:09pm

    Re: close but no banana

    Being a Soldier is different than being a civilian.

    But not different from being a human being!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Mar 5th, 2013 @ 3:14pm

    Re: leaking information to the press equivalent to espionage and aiding the enemy

    There ar two kinds of secrets - secrets kept to preserve a tactical military advantage - and secrets kept because "their deeds were evil". (John 3:19)

    Manning mostly (if not entirely) revealed the second kind. His prosecution is a disgrace.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Mar 5th, 2013 @ 3:24pm

    Re: Re: Oh, yeah, except it's not.

    Whether he _thought_ something should be classified and not divulged isn't his business. The command structure declared it to be classified... it's classified. Transferring it to an unauthorized location is a violation of orders under military law, whether or not it's classified. Using unauthorized software on military computers is another. Getting around mandated security mechanisms is another.

    In other words the military are supposed to "follow orders".

    If I remember correctly "following orders" was not a defence at the Nurnberg trials.

    Every human being has moral obligations that transcend the rules of the system he finds himself within.

    Of course he can expect that organisation to follow its own rules and it may not go well for him - but in the final analysis the organisation will be judged by history on grounds that go beyond its own rules.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    icon
    Torg (profile), Mar 5th, 2013 @ 3:58pm

    Re: close but no banana

    I most certainly can condone members of the military releasing intentionally information of this kind. What I can't condone is members of one of America's most important government institutions being unable to let Americans know when that institution is misbehaving. Nothing will lead to corruption faster than that kind of setup.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    icon
    Torg (profile), Mar 5th, 2013 @ 5:46pm

    Re: Re: Oh, yeah, except it's not.

    "The command structure declared it to be classified... it's classified. Transferring it to an unauthorized location is a violation of orders under military law, whether or not it's classified."

    Translation: his superiors said they didn't want that stuff to get out, and, what's more, the place that the files were sent was somewhere they didn't want those files going. This stands in sharp contrast to standard whistleblowers, who I guess ask permission first or something?

    "Using unauthorized software on military computers is another. Getting around mandated security mechanisms is another."

    Also, apparently he was looking somewhere he wasn't supposed to look with a program he wasn't supposed to use. Surely no whistleblower in the history of whistles has done such a heinous thing!

    "the military has a whistle-blower provision, but a pretty narrow one requiring that the military member report to Congress or to the Inspector General. Nothing about the press, public, or Wikileaks."

    And now apparently revealing information to the press or public means that a soldier isn't a whistleblower. I now know what it feels like for one's mind to be boggled. I can't even be sarcastic about this.

    The charges on Wikipedia don't impress me much either, since they all appear to be in the same vein of "sending something somewhere that the military didn't want it sent". Upholding those rules here would be the death of whistleblower protections in the military, though by the sound of it it's more like refusing to uphold those rules would reanimate whistleblower protections in the military.

    What I've learned from this is that if I ever feel like being corrupt, I need to become a high-ranking military officer, because they've got a deal that the average corporate head would rape a porcupine for.

    And now for a classic literature reference and a conclusion.

    "Whether he _thought_ something should be classified and not divulged isn't his business."

    Business?! Mankind is his business! The common welfare is his business!

    "The rules in the military are different than for the public."

    They sure as hell are. That is not a good thing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    identicon
    Gregg, Mar 6th, 2013 @ 5:46am

    Re: Re: close but no banana

    I will agree that the information should be properly dispensed to the public in a reasonable time frame and should not be redacted. Access to information should be written into the Constitution!

    Additionally, it is so wrong that much of the dirty stuff found in the content happened, and there were no repercussions to those people involved. IT does shed a light to the public, just how dirty the US government is.

    In the end, Manning took one for the team, that team being Human Beings. But I still stand by my words that the Military can not condone his actions, and he will suffer the consequences.

    I think it is sad that everyone else involved (whether mentioned in the diplomatic cables or his higher ranks are not being involved or investigated at all. This trial is for show and the military want if over with as fast as possible.

    For truth and freedom, he is a martyr, for American Military Intelligence, he is the worst type of enemy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    identicon
    H. Martin Korenberg, Mar 6th, 2013 @ 12:33pm

    Sgt. Bradley Manning / US Army

    President Obama.
    Sir, pardon Bradley Manning. You know it's the right thing to do, and if you do not, Ms. Michelle Obama, your terrific wife, should advise you on what needs doing and when.

    C'mon man, it's your second, the no-fault, last term (barring something astronomical). Let's do the right thing. History will approve the light brown icing on the flannery cake.

    With the greatest of respect, Sir, I remain, your devoted supporter, Herbert Korenberg, now subject to 2 presidents.
    Oi vey!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    icon
    crade (profile), Mar 12th, 2013 @ 3:23pm

    Re: Why it isnt a case of whistle blowing

    So you are saying, if he hadn't done the work he did to make sure that nothing actually damaging (like evidence of war crimes being covered up) was released, only *then* would he have qualified as a whistleblower?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    identicon
    mhab, May 22nd, 2013 @ 10:32am

    Re:

    replace ... uhm .. with terrorism!!! (aiding the enemy because terrorism!!!)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This